This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If we could uplift dogs or other non-sentient animals to sentience, should we? There's a Rick and Morty episode where they uplift the intelligence of a pet dog, who goes on to uplift all other dogs and lead a rebellion against humans. Theoretically the idea is that if humans and dogs had the same level of intelligence, the way we treat dogs would be inhumane.
While I agree with the statement above, obviously there's a vast gulf between the intelligence of humans and every other form of life we know of. If we accept the premise that once we have the technology to uplift dogs we not only must treat them different but have a moral imperative to uplift all dogs, we get into dangerous territory. Essentially as soon as we become capable of increasing the intelligence of any form of life, we must. This sounds like a bad idea, especially since at a certain point we may lose out to other forms of species that have evolved to kill us. (Mosquitos, insects generally that are hard to kill but venomous/diseased enough to kill us.)
Assuming uplifting other species is even possible, I wonder how this would change our outlook on how we treat animals today. Personally I am not a vegetarian, totally fine with pets, although I do find the state of factory farming today pretty dismal, and think we should treat animals we eat better. As someone's flair here says, how far will we last until we have to become outright speciesist?
Why not uplift individual cells, bacteria, plants, etc? surely every silicon atom should have its own dedicated hardware running a consciousness?
It would be against egalitarian principles to not do so.
Yep that’s what I was trying to get at in the original post. I think it’s interesting as an experiment but not a moral imperative because the implications are way too far reaching.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No we shouldn't, it's a dumb idea that serves no practical purpose that I can appreciate.
And that's on top of it being an impossible fancy of fiction writers in the first place.
Not a fan of David Brin?
Hadn't heard of him until now. Skimming wikipedia has not made me interested in his work. Is he very good in spite of my impression?
He's good enough to read, but not good enough to require reading. He won some Hugos in the 80s for his Uplift series, but the first book, Sundiver, is not Hugo quality and feels like a first work (because it is).
I only mention him because his series is literally called Uplift, and Brin claims to have coined the term.
The setting itself is one where patron species Uplift client species through genetic engineering, where the client is then indebted to the patron, and the patron gets status and protection and rights from all other species.. Humans are unique in that they have no patron race, and further have uplifted chimps and dolphins by the time contact is made with the rest of the alien society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We don't even uplift humans, why should we uplift dogs? Technically, we have already tried to uplift humans (all these residence schools for indigenous people), got mixed results and quietly abandoned the project.
Eh, hopefully we’ll get back to uplifting humans one day once we know what we’re doing!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Animal uplift is a particularly funny result of (correct) knowledge of animal similarity to humans, in that they experience in the same way we do - and a progressive desire to help all and protect all from harm. The first obvious problem with it is - an intelligent human with hands, eyes, legs is much more able to use intelligence than an intelligent dog with paws, 20lb of bodymass, and maybe a desire to pick up balls or chew on toys. Every uplifted dog that was born is just a waste compared to an uplifted human born. Their experience would be much worse than the corresponding human. To say nothing about rabbits or deer! They fill ecological niches it's not worth filling with humans, dedicating reasonable amounts of resources to them. Minimizing wild animal 'suffering' (suffering is fine!) can only be done by killing them all anyway.
Could be interesting in an experimental sort of way seeing how different types of consciousness differ.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why would dogs rebel? I'd understand if chicken or cows rebelled - but we would never do to them what we're doing if they were sentient anyway. But dogs? Except for the lack of personal freedom, they're getting pretty good deal. Some get more rough one, but it's mostly illegal (like dog fights) and in normal case they get all their needs covered and them pampered in exchange for basically looking excited when they see humans. If they got sentient, they'd maybe less likely to accept and love humans unconditionally, but there's not much reason for them to get upset with us, at least for the most of them.
Speak for yourself. I believe whales are probably sentient, and would quite happily eat whale meat were I to visit Japan. On the other hand there are many very disabled people who are not sentient, to say nothing of infants, and I would consider it obviously horrific to put them on the smoker or keep them in battery cages. Sentience is not the dividing line, humanity is.
It's not about eating (there aren't that many cultures now where eating dogs is ok), it's about not recognizing their personal freedom and worth. If you think whales are sentient, water parks where whales are, essentially, enslaved and trained to entertain us, without any concern for their personal consent - should horrify you. I think it is obvious this is not what most of the people think.
Yes, I think shamu is fine, and I think that putting non-sentient infants in battery cages is horrific. This is because sentience is not something I consider morally relevant, humanity is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Uplifting predators is a bad idea generally; we're on track to destroy this pathetic biosphere and we're not the hyper-optomized obligate carnivores that some species are. If housecats had access to modern technology we'd all be atomized by now.
Yeah housecats are pretty cruel. Cute, but cruel. I would definitely choose dogs if I had to choose one to give access to modern tech...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We are already outright speciesist and we obviously should be. I think maybe the progressive drum has beat and suffixes like -ism/-phobia have totally lost their roots. It is only wrong to avoid -isms that cause you to discriminate in a way that is wrong/bad. Racism is wrong/bad because racism as a heuristic is both not all that good(It may cause you to assume Bruce Lee cannot fight or that Dirk Nowitzki will be bad at basketball) and violates the important inter-tribal truce that is liberalism without which there would be much suffering and gnashing of teeth. -phobias are bad because they imply irrational fear and things that are rational to fear often end up with the -phobia suffix incorrectly.
Speciesism is a perfectly rational and good position. It is a good heuristic that dogs are dumber than humans.
Why isn't it a good heuristic that some groups of humans are (generally) dumber than some others, despite all of the evidence supporting that? Because it's not quite as universal as dogs being dumber than humans (which isn't in fact even universal itself as there are some really brain-damaged, dementia-afflicted, etc. humans and some really smart dogs)? What degree of universality is required for a heuristic to be good? (My understanding of the word "heuristic" in the first place kind of precludes them from being universal as opposed to often true "rules of thumb" but perhaps you disagree.)
PS: I don't think any racist has ever stereotyped Asians as being bad at... traditionally East Asian martial arts.
Aren't suffering and gnashing of teeth sometimes necessary to escape a comfortable local maximum that is hindering discovering a higher point somewhere else along the function of human excellence? There has been much suffering throughout human history not just from illiberal conflict but also from even the perfectly peaceful aspects of the agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, etc. (You could argue that one or both of these has been a "disaster for the human race" and I won't necessarily disagree with you but even at that one must grant the objective technological advantages and improvements created by both.)
Well because the whole more in group variance than between group variance. It's over used but you're likely moving around in your daily life in an already heavily filtered bubble and should not assume that any black person who has made it near you is dumber than any white person who has made it near you. There are much much better heuristics for what you're trying to do on an individual level. On larger population levels you shouldn't be using heuristics at all and instead use better measurements.
Would you like to volunteer for the suffering? A world optimized for genetic fitness is not really a racist world unless you go by the kendi style outcome racism thing. Many many white and asian people also do not make the cut. And are you so sure you would? Maybe the cut is top 50% intelligence, maybe it's top 0.001%, more likely it's who is well connected people and you get recycled for your spare proteins. You better be damn sure you're going to end up on top if you are considering abandoning liberalism. If your ideas can only be discussed on obscure internet forums consider that you'd be the Jew and not the SS officer and think long and hard about it.
Are you referring to Lewontin's fallacy?
This isn't what a understanding of racial IQ statistics means though.
If your only defense of liberalism is "We need liberalism, because the only alternative to it is my strawman conception of ruthless, nepotistic survival of the fittest!" then that's not very convincing. By that logic I can say you should support illiberalism because how sure can you be that you or someone you care about won't fall in the long run to liberalism's degeneracy and become a drug addict or something?
Or if we look more into the future, how about a wirehead? Who will avoid the ever increasing levels of mindless wireheading (with social media scrolling being an obvious prototype of this) that liberalism encourages? Maybe the cut is top 50%, maybe it's top 0.001%, more likely it's who is well connected will know the cheat codes to save themselves from their own system's flaws and your daughter ends up on VR OnlyFans at best.
That depends on the suffering. Noble suffering is superior to ignoble pleasure. Of course one does not "volunteer" for it. That's besides the point though, unless you an absolute voluntaryist which I am not. Nobody volunteers for life in general. So what?
You seem to refuse to consider the possibility that the SS officer can be killed by the Jew, even though that's exactly what happened post-1945.
I'm not going to read a whole study to find out what your objection is. Studies should be included to support an argument, not in place of one.
Presumably you would have some ability to prevent those you care about from falling into some degenerate spiral or instantiate you own sub population within liberalism capable of forming norms to your liking like many populations like Mormons and the Amish have successfully done. You just can't use force to keep people in them. Before you cite interference with such communities I oppose such interference and consider it illiberal. You cannot prevent yourself from being liquidated by a superior force.
This is the same argument communists make and it's just as bad, you can make whatever society you want within liberalism, that you've failed to do so and you think the missing ingredient is access to state force is very telling.
So don't wire head.
Which outside super power do you expect to save you, not even as their main goal from this fate?
The central objection is right in the abstract. You can't read one paragraph?
That's debatable. I've had some decent amount of fun with Mormon girls.
Really? Your liberalism is going to let me create pedofascism? Doubt it.
Wow, amazing. I can't believe you just solved vice in four words. Have you told all of the overeaters, alcoholics, porn addicts, crack addicts, and other victims of liberal excess this? "lmao bro just prevent yourself and everyone you know and everyone whose actions could impact your life in anyway from being manipulated by perverse incentives, temptation, etc. It's not that hard!" Your statement is "Teach men not to rape!"-tier.
No super power is necessary. The outcomes listed in order of preference are:
Live as lion.
Die as lion.
Live as bug.
So while 1 is still superior to 2, since the modern status quo only creates 3, destroying it is still superior even if you only get 2 for your trouble.
Yes, I can read the paragraph, what I can't do is figure out how it contradicts anything I actually said. It argues against the belief that race is a social construct which is not what I asserted. This is a miss matched you would have noticed if you used studies as support for arguments and not in place of arguments.
I don't know what this has to do with anything.
No liberalism is not going to let you force your beliefs on others, that's the point. If you can't actually get people to willingly join your community what good is it? I'm sorry that everyone in the society you live in thinks your ideas are ridiculous and disgusting and wants nothing to do with you. Abandoning liberalism will not change this fact, you'll just be killed and left to rot and your weird beliefs will die with you. I'm serious, if I gave you a button that magically dissolved liberalism how precisely do you think that leads to pedo-fascism? If you want to live in a mad max like world you can go to the Nevada desert and act as a highway man until you're hunted down like a dog already.
I don't really see your proposed solution. Fascism has much the same failure modes, you're aware of the drug use among Nazis I presume? Is your sense of morality modeled after ants?
This philosophy can only really be carried out by one person. Lions famously do not build societies and have no fared well in contest with groups that do.
It is specifically the well-known scientific rebuttal (from 2003) to the study that originated the "more in group variance than between group variance" fallacy (which is from 1972). If you're going to ignorantly spout highly outdated information, then you should at least be aware of the most popular counterargument to it.
The word "social", much less the phrase "social construct", isn't even used once in the abstract. Do you actually not know how to read or did you just assume what the rest of it said after reading the first few words (which is ironic given that you're accusing me of using boilerplate language in place of an actual argument)?
C'mon, this isn't Reddit. Hold yourself to a bit of a higher standard than blatantly falsely characterizing sources that you're given. The argument advanced in the abstract is very clearly 100% biological/genetic in character and makes no reference to sociology at all.
What it has to do with the subject is that "liberal" (and in quotes this should be as there is nothing genuinely liberating about them) societies are a poison that seeps into all that surrounds them. So "form an enclave in a broader 'liberal' society" still isn't a good solution, especially when those societies do not rightfully recognize females as property. Would you be good neighbors with someone who thinks they have the right to keep your dog if it runs off?
Not true. On less normie corners of the Internet, plenty of people agree with me (and even here I've gotten more agreement with certain aspects of what I propose, including both the pedophilic and the fascist, than expected). Do we thus have the freedom to claim lebensraum for ourselves and establish an independent society under your "liberalism" though? Obviously not.
When did I say it does? To say that something is necessary to establish a particular condition is not to say that it is sufficient. (Even fully dissolving "liberalism" is not necessary. I am fundamentally a libertAryan as my flair says and ultimately won't beg anyone to abandon the globohomo matrix if they are really that enslaved and/or brainwashed by it. It simply must be chastened into relinquishing any claims of a universal dominion over human affairs.)
You do realize that fascism is the opposite of a "Mad Max-like world" right?
Nazis used drugs in an attempt to enhance their fighting prowess, which is perfectly valid, not out of the pursuit of idle pleasure. Their crime, and it is a crime, was that of lacking appropriate caution, knowledge, and prudence in their schemes of chemical enhancement.
But it was still not even remotely comparable to the vice of mindless hedonism and its widespread tolerance. I guarantee you that in Nazi Germany they didn't have citizens strung out on deadly opiates nodding off publicly on trains, street corners, etc. with zero repercussions. There were no homeless tents of crack and fent addicts. It's a complete false equivalence and I have no doubt that you know that, which highlights how disingenuously you're "arguing".
Well, luckily it is only a metaphor and we are sapient lions who understand how much more powerful dudes are when they rock together.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If humans had a truce with cows and chickens, wouldn't that reduce a lot of suffering?
Humans do have a kind of implied truce with cows and chickens, there isn't exactly conflict so much as domination.
Is it really a truce if we torture them?
Truce is just a kind of weird word to use on something so one sided.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I sometimes wonder to what extent our perceived lack of intelligence in animals is just a communication issue. A feral human raised by orangutans probably wouldn't seem especially smart, but there's a ton of potential locked behind the language barrier.
I don't expect a dolphin could become a nuclear physicist, but I seriously wonder if we could teach it to count to ten thousand if we could figure out a way to expand their vocabulary a little to introduce some new concepts.
More options
Context Copy link
This makes me wish there were more elephant-like alien races in Sci-fi novels. Alas.
Surface Detail, one of the books in the Culture series by Iain Banks, features an elephant-like alien race called the Pavuleans who, most memorably, have a horrific computer simulated hell to punish criminals.
More options
Context Copy link
The Poseidon's Children trilogy by Alistair Reynolds features uplifting elephants as major plot point in the first book, and then uplifted elephants as major characters in the third book.
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
ME1 was great in how it handled the variety of galactic species. They had an out-of-universe limitation that only humanoid species could be adequately animated, so they created various wonderfully weird species they could use as static NPCs and came up with an in-universe explanation: non-humanoid species (or, more precisely, non-asarioid species) are being actively discriminated against: if you are not an oxygen-breathing biped with at least two arms and a head that prefers an atmosphere of about 100k Pa and gravity of about 10N, your species will not be taken seriously, but no one will tell that to your face.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Footfall by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle features an invasion by an alien species that is distinctly elephantine. Other than that I got nothing.
Eh I read Ringworld and was unimpressed with Niven’s writing chops. His worldbuilding is decent though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, selectively breeding dogs for intelligence seems like it would be scientifically valuable. I just think uplifting dogs to human level sentience is obviously terrible.
Haven't we done precisely that already though?
We domesticated dogs, but they’re a standard deviation dumber than wolves IIRC. We’ve selectively bred dogs for all sorts of things, but I don’t think intelligence is one of them- although some breeds are generally smarter than others(notably, breeds that do not make good pets but have very real world uses as working dogs are smarter and lap dogs tend to be dumb. Which is a datapoint I intend to use in any discussion of human genetic engineering for intelligence- most people aren’t big on keeping border collies and Dobermans as pets).
IDK about border collies - most people just don't have the space for one to run around to its hearts content - but there are definitely dobermann fans, particularly because the dogs tend to bond extremely hard with their owners.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If dogs had the same level of intelligence/sapience we do, we wouldn't need to treat them the way we do, because they could be trusted to look after themselves and not try to play with cars in traffic.
Why would anyone put forward this premise? I legitimately do not understand it. Is the theory that not doing so is tantamount to forever denying them qualia that they otherwise would not have obtained? If so, then sure, I guess, but wouldn't we be under a more pressing duty to forcibly give all deaf people cochlear implants and all amputees the highest grade of cybernetic prosthetic available first? Wouldn't we be under a duty to try and develop - and forcibly institute - universal genetic therapies "curing" Downs' syndrome and Autism and all other antisocial human personality traits? A lot of those would get pretty fierce blowback from multiple angles, and would seem to be much more achievable and less invasive than species-wide uplift of dogs.
I'm in favor of focusing on curing diseases, and believing we have a moral imperative to cure them, yeah. I would say the current idea of a 'mental illness' like Autism (at least in some diagnoses) is pretty damn imperfect though.
I suppose the reason to put it forward is idle curiosity? Also I think at some point we will be faced with this question, or at least the technology will be a reality. I'd predict that our morality will treat animals with more salience in that future, although I may be wrong.
No more imperfect than the concept of 'general intelligence' to uplift dogs.
Agreed. If anything I'd said the concept of uplifting species is far less developed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The question becomes more fraught if you can divide your brain into parts and uplift those parts into full sentience. What if you could excise your cerebellum from your body, uplift it to personhood, and give it its own body? Maybe your cerebellum already has a degree of consciousness separate from you. If so, then it may not like it's current job aiding your motor control. Its lot in life would probably be improved it was freed from your service, uplifted to full sentience, and given its own body. Do you owe it to your cerebellum to set it free?
I know you don't like the status quo of having lesser animals as pets and beasts of burden. And I know you would revolt against the idea of creating mentally stunted, sexually exploitable "catgirls." My counterargument is that the parts of the body and parts of the brain can also be thought of as beasts of burden subjugated and even harmed by other parts of the brain. Parts of the brain could also be targets for uplifting and liberation in the same way lesser animals can.
"My gift to industry is the genetically engineered sex worker, or Catgirl. Specially designed for sex, the Catgirl's muscles and nerves are ideal for her task, and the cerebral cortex has been atrophied so that she can desire nothing except to perform his duties. Tyranny, you say? How can you tyrannize someone who can only feel pleasure?"
Douglas Adam's did it better with the cows.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hmm not sure I want to touch the catgirls part of your post, but the different parts of your brain idea is interesting I suppose. I do wonder whether our consciousness or internal experience is actually from one specific part of the brain though, like the frontal lobe. In that case uplifting your cerebellum wouldn't make a ton of sense... unless you would just remove all other parts of the brain outside of frontal lobe + cerebellum?
Idk my intuition is that consciousness is more of an emergent phenomenon that comes about through all the connections of neurons etc, and it's more of a neuron density thing (like @2rafa said above) rather than specific parts of the brain all having individual and independent 'levels' of sentience.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, we shouldn’t. A dog with an IQ of 100 would be trapped in a life of torture for unavoidable physical reasons- dogs are supremely social creatures who have anatomical barriers to being able to communicate well. Their low IQ makes up for the lack of bandwidth because they don’t have much to communicate anyways. You would be making, essentially, a dumb, blind, double amputee.
I mean you could always make a bowman’s wolf type creature, which is modified to have human vocal cords, hands, etc. At this point I think you’re not really talking about a dog anymore, you’re talking about a living furry.
In any case making fully sentient servant races, particularly those that are basically trapped in adolescence their entire lives(as dogs are) is probably not a good idea. All the drawbacks of AI, less predictability.
Wait, why is that true? Dogs couldn't mimic human speech, but that's not the only way to communicate. Morse code wouldn't be beyond a 100 IQ dog, or using those pre-programmed soundboards that niche youtubers have taught their pets to use. And that's saying nothing about particularly dog-adapted methods of communicating like sophisticated body language, variable-pitch vocalizations, etc. They already communicate a lot, including with us-its why there's such strong bonds between people and dogs.
Also, why "blind" and "double amputee?" Dogs also have way better senses than standard humans; that's gotta be way more interesting than what our sensorium gives us. Plus they are plenty mobile - no problem moving around.
Dogs have significantly worse vision than humans do, on top of being dichromats.
Not that it's a big deal, a society that can reliably uplift dogs can probably do cybernetic eyes with ease.
I did not know this! Thanks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Short answer? Utilitarianism.
I have heard some of the more extreme animal advocacy people arguing for this type of thing. Basically the idea that if a living being has any qualia whatsoever, it deserves to have enough intelligence to make its own decisions in some capacity. Usually with some caveats around the idea of intelligence actually making people less happy. Then of course you get into the area of whether or not it's positive utility to make everyone dumber.
Even with taking utilitarianism as axiom: why not get more people instead?
More options
Context Copy link
Tell you what, I think animal advocacy people don't want the dog/owner relationship to exist because the anthropomorphize dogs so they're tying themselves into knots imagining how they can abolish that relationship but not make dogs extinct.
In dogs we have (rightly or wrongly) bread an animal more noble and worthy than we are. They serve us better than we serve each other. They might not be as intelligent as we are, but I think they're having a much better time. I don't think we should strive to be as dumb/happy as dogs are, but to me (a staunch dog-phobic mind you) it would seem cruel to take away the arraignment they currently enjoy.
More options
Context Copy link
It seems like the better answer to this is to say that it’s evidence of extreme utilitarianism being stupid.
More options
Context Copy link
Utilitarianism basically says that if a being has 'positive' utility, or a good net life based on internal experiences (or qualia). Maybe we have a different definition of qualia.
I find this approach to be pretty damn unimaginative, and taking modern technology for granted. Do you think we would have built these computers we're talking through if that was what most people believed?
If I can put on some airs for the forum, part of the role of a intelligenstia in society is to think about ways society could be better, and work to improve it. In my humble opinion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link